NEW YORK | 343 Madison Avenue | 844 FT | 49 FLOORS

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Sky88

For NYguy
So, ultimately the height of 343 tower will be 1,080ft?
Do you think that Grand Hyatt tower will be taller than Tower Fifth?

It would be fantastic if there was finally a 2,000 ft tower on the Roosevelt Hotel site, we will have a super 21st century Skyline.

This tower will be up to 1,080 ft with the bulkhead, possibly higher with a parapet. It could always end up a little shorter, but that's where they are coming from now.

[SkyHigher]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

i hate to be a debbie downer, but this being the mta hq site a reminder that the mta is undergoing an extrememly worrisome covid related fiscal tsunami meltdown.

mta ceo pat foye describes it here:

https://www.amny.com/oped/op-ed/

Yeh a real reality link there

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by SkyHigher

Will it ever be the same....

We're still in the year of the pandemic, of which the city is leading the way out of while the rest of the country lags. It will take some time for everyone to get back to anything resembling normal, not just New York. That being said, the signs of returning are already beginning to show, as tourist have began the return, and subways ridership is rising fast. Don't expect businesses to look normal this year at least, as companies aren't expected to bring employees back in full.

Originally Posted by mrnyc

i hate to be a debbie downer, but this being the mta hq site a reminder that the mta is undergoing an extrememly worrisome covid related fiscal tsunami meltdown.

mta ceo pat foye describes it here:

https://www.amny.com/oped/op-ed/

I'm not sure why that would make you a "downer".

The only reason this is moving forward now, instead of a few years ago is because of the poor finances of the MTA. The buildings have been empty for years, as the MTA continued to waste money on them.

Read this thread people:

https://therealdeal.com/2018/08/24/t...-headquarters/

The MTA is still spending millions to maintain its empty headquarters
Agency spends roughly $4M a year on 341, 345 and 347 Madison Avenue

August 24, 2018

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-grand-central

MTA Deal With City Clears Way for Tower Near Grand Central


By Natalie Wong and Michelle Kaske
April 2, 2020


City and state officials have reached an agreement on the redevelopment of the former Metropolitan Transportation Authority headquarters near Grand Central Terminal, ending years of squabbling over the project.

The site at 341-347 Madison Avenue is projected to bring in more than $1 billion for the MTA’s capital program, the agency said in a statement.

The deal calls for New York City to use $600 million from the development to fund obligations to the transit agency, according to the statement.

“With the MTA and our government funding partners still assessing the budgetary implications of the coronavirus pandemic, this funding is more important than ever,” MTA Chief Financial Officer Bob Foran said in a statement. “It demonstrates how the MTA is taking every step it can to shore up its funding.”

The MTA, which runs the largest public transportation system in the nation, needs cash. The transit system is losing an estimated $125 million a week in fare revenue and bridge and tunnel toll receipts as ridership plummets during the coronavirus outbreak.

The MTA financial situation is getting this built, and will likely push the Grand Hyatt redevelopment forward as well, as the MTA will gain from that.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by NYguy

I'm not sure why that would make you a "downer".

The only reason this is moving forward now, instead of a few years ago is because of the poor finances of the MTA. The buildings have been empty for years, as the MTA continued to waste money on them.

Read this thread people:


The MTA financial situation is getting this built, and will likely push the Grand Hyatt redevelopment forward as well, as the MTA will gain from that.

you aren't sure why??

because such dire financial desperation is leading mta to sell off their property assets in a fire sale for the money. if you read my link above per foye mta loses $600M in three weeks, so that is peanuts for their needs. also, it's a reminder that employees actually have to be able to get to this tower to work and to go home again and mta will struggle to assist in that daily commuting endeavour as never before. remember the whole thing grinds to a halt if people can't get around due to mta issues or they are afraid of crowded and delayed or restricted transit. probably not a topic for this thread, but anyway, you asked and that is why.

[NYguy]

From the massing diagram, I see something somewhat similar to 510 Madison, but much taller, and on a base of 300 ft. Of course, the facade and other details will differ, but similar in stacking.




https://radiiinc.com/mdeas-510-madis...f7r6t9aosqn0gj












https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=...AAAAAdAAAAABAz

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

you aren't sure why??

because such dire financial desperation is leading mta to sell off their property assets in a fire sale for the money.

It's not a fire sale. This was done years ago. And luckily so, because I don't think the developers would be lining up at this point to pay extra for it, especially if they thought the MTA was just jacking the price for the pandemic.

if you read my link above per foye mta loses $600M in three weeks, so that is peanuts for their needs.

So you think the MTA should continue to throw away money? YES, the MTA is at a loss. We know that.

it's a reminder that employees actually have to be able to get to this tower to work and to go home again and mta will struggle to assist in that daily commuting endeavour as never before.

Oh this sky is falling attitude with some of you. I get it. Everyone is a little afraid. A pandemic could do that to you. But we all have to keep our heads. Yes, the MTA is having funding issues. And yes, this is exactly the type of project that will help with that. There have been some MTA improvements that could be cut, but with projects like this one filling the gap - particularly at one of the busiest transit hubs like this one - every bit helps.

[JMKeynes]

That simply appears to be a massing model that has no bearing to the actual design. The original massing models shown for 270 are completely different from Foster's leaked model that Yimby posted.

[rgarri4]

I actually wouldn't mind a modern boxy design here. New York has so many points spikes in its skyline it might be a relief to see some thing bold boxy that isn't a super skinny.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Yes, the MTA is having funding issues.

yes, the mta certainly is having funding issues:

aggregate $16 billion deficit through 2024.

[JMKeynes]

With all of these new towers, NY is so solidly securing its position as the US city with absolutely no peer whatsoever.

[pianowizard]

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

With all of these new towers, NY is so solidly securing its position as the US city with absolutely no peer whatsoever.

NYC already has more completed or topped-out supertalls than the rest of the US combined! Hopefully this will be yet another supertall.

[JMKeynes]

Originally Posted by pianowizard

NYC already has more completed or topped-out supertalls than the rest of the US combined! Hopefully this will be yet another supertall.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

That simply appears to be a massing model that has no bearing to the actual design. The original massing models shown for 270 are completely different from Foster's leaked model that Yimby posted.

That's because, as you may recall, the design for 270 had to be revised because of the whole open plaza thing. We never saw the massing for what the eventual tower would be at the time, just an altered version of the graphic as was presented. It's not like that current design was on standby to be plugged in at the hearings.

As for this tower, yes, it is just a stacking diagram, but the form is obvious. There will be a base with a setback at 301 ft (the specific figure given) and the tower will rise to 1,050 ft minus roof elements that could go as high as 1,080 ft, which would be the total roof height. We usually get parapets to hide those things, so it would surprise me if the tower ended up a little higher than that. Of course the height could be revised downwards. One way could be an adjustment in floor heights, but they seem to know what they want and are working with here. No surprises. I see a 25 ft lobby, followed by close to 20 ft difference in floors. The will be 36 ft between the top of the vent structure and the cantilever. When we get into approvals, you will see more specifics on views, shadows, etc.

Originally Posted by rgarri4

I actually wouldn't mind a modern boxy design here. New York has so many points spikes in its skyline it might be a relief to see some thing bold boxy that isn't a super skinny.

Then you sir may not know the New York skyline. It is nothing but row upon row of boxy. Even the relief we might have gotten from the Hudson Yards is nothing but bulky buildings. Everything at the WTC is bulky and boxy, and midtown east is headed in that same direction. The New York skyline has a few super skinny skyscrapers, but they hardly define skyscrapers in New York. That being said, I welcome the box here because it won't be the dominant building in the area. I actually find boxes to be a pure form of skyscraper, but not for purposes of defining the skyline.

Originally Posted by mrnyc

yes, the mta certainly is having funding issues:

aggregate $16 billion deficit through 2024.

That's mostly from lack of ridership, which had to happen. Ridership is picking up, but that just stops the bleeding. Funding issues will lead to more cuts in service or upgrades unless there is more emergency funding. At least there will be funding for the improvements and access around this tower and others like it.

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

With all of these new towers, NY is so solidly securing its position as the US city with absolutely no peer whatsoever.

I don't know what you're talking about. If you're talking about in number of skyscrapers or supertalls, that much is and has been obvious, and there really is no need for that statement. Let's just keep the discussion on this tower.

[NYguy]

Looking at this graphic, it occurs to me that the 1,020 ft observation deck is for the lower level, and the top (3rd level) would be at around 1,051 ft, topping the outdoor ESB deck by a foot.
Here's where 1,080 ft stacks up with Vanderbilt, and the 1,020 ft deck height.







Here's 1,080 ft of box (minus setback) compared to 1 Vanderbilt.










Compared to an earlier estimate, pretty close...

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

While they're at it how about they just fix the flawed sky-plane building code that has gifted us dozens upon dozens of absurd looking and streetwall destroying set-back budget hotel towers.

One more thing about the hotels, it’s not just the east side, they want to go citywide...


https://therealdeal.com/2020/07/28/m...otels-sources/

Mayor still bent on limiting new hotels: sources
De Blasio wants to require special permits citywide before term ends


By Kathryn Brenzel
Jul. 28, 2020

As hotel owners stare down dramatic drops in revenue and ponder an uncertain future, Mayor Bill de Blasio is still pushing for a proposal that would severely limit hotel construction throughout the city, according to multiple industry sources.

Last year, the mayor said he supported requiring developers to obtain a special permit to build hotels throughout the five boroughs.

De Blasio called on the Department of City Planning to do a study, which representatives for the agency said Friday is still underway. Though there’s no public timeline for its release, industry sources say the mayor is still determined — despite the pandemic’s having crushed the hotel business — to get the policy in place before he leaves office in 17 months.

[pianowizard]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Here's 1,080 ft of box (minus setback) compared to 1 Vanderbilt.

I bet 1 Vanderbilt regrets not having built taller, as this 1080-footer will obstruct quite a bit of the view from Vandy's deck. The original proposed height of 1,501 ft would have been much better.

[BK1985]

Originally Posted by pianowizard

I bet 1 Vanderbilt regrets not having built taller, as this 1080-footer will obstruct quite a bit of the view from Vandy's deck. The original proposed height of 1,501 ft would have been much better.

The extra 100 feet really wouldn’t have made a difference IMO

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by pianowizard

I bet 1 Vanderbilt regrets not having built taller, as this 1080-footer will obstruct quite a bit of the view from Vandy's deck. The original proposed height of 1,501 ft would have been much better.

Originally Posted by BK1985

The extra 100 feet really wouldn’t have made a difference IMO

That extra 100 ft would put Vandy’s decks at 1,120 ft (bottom) and 1,151 ft (top). Enough of a clearance, similar to 30 Hudson over 50 Hudson and the Spiral. I think 270 will take a slice out if the view either way. But it’s all clear in every other direction, at least until the Grand Hyatt rises up.

[BK1985]

Originally Posted by NYguy

That extra 100 ft would put Vandy’s decks at 1,120 ft (bottom) and 1,151 ft (top). Enough of a clearance, similar to 30 Hudson over 50 Hudson and the Spiral. I think 270 will take a slice out if the view either way. But it’s all clear in every other direction, at least until the Grand Hyatt rises up.

That’s what I mean that it wouldn’t make much of a difference. Vandy will be similar to top of the rock and not a deck that towers above everything else.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by BK1985

That’s what I mean that it wouldn’t make much of a difference. Vandy will be similar to top of the rock and not a deck that towers above everything else.

But you see, there is a difference. At Vandy’s current deck height, 343 Madison will rise above it, where as at 30 Rock, and 30 Hudson, you’re still looking down on neighboring buildings. But the view of 343 Madison and 270 Park (both higher) will be spectacular.